Re: Web Mail Access
From: Knight (white_aura_knight_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 11/19/03
- Next message: Scott Contini: "Re: securID weakness"
- Previous message: Knight: "Re: W2K Guest Account and mitigation"
- Next in thread: Walter Roberson: "Re: Web Mail Access"
- Reply: Walter Roberson: "Re: Web Mail Access"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:09:56 +0000 (UTC)
"Bob Simon" <bobneworleans@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5fa8f772.0310281054.4c096e60@posting.google.com...
> We currently allow remote access into Web Mail via a high-numbered
> port. A guy complained that some places block his access to Web Mail
> and asked that we change the Web Mail port to 80 (or some other
> well-known port number that would not likely be blocked).
>
> What do you think of this idea?
The only reason I think you have put your Web Server on a higher port is
because you have heard that exploits have been coded directly for this port.
And that is true, but it is no real security defense, as port redirection of
the exploit on the client side will still attack you on any port. The only
bebfit I can see is that it may take an attack some scanning to find it, and
they will, they will.
- Next message: Scott Contini: "Re: securID weakness"
- Previous message: Knight: "Re: W2K Guest Account and mitigation"
- Next in thread: Walter Roberson: "Re: Web Mail Access"
- Reply: Walter Roberson: "Re: Web Mail Access"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
|